New Wave of Nuclear Weapons

Scanning the web i came across this story, sorry if it's been posted before.

www.usatoday.com...

I'd like to hear your views

[edit on 23-6-2004 by UK Wizard]

i guess it's an old story by the lack of reply's

I heavent heard of this before but im all for it anything to kill americas enemy's

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.fas.org...

problem is that king George thinks nukes are weapons to be used, not just a threat of distruction. This is a bad idea, remember, if it's ok for us, then others will think it's ok for them too.

This is a fairly old story. The buzz was going on even during Afghanistan. I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested the use of tactical nuclear weapons to create battlefield breakthroughs. If we re-deploy nuclear artilley, we're in trouble. Other than that, these are legitimate "worst case scenario" ideas, recieving preliminary consideration in the face of nuclear proliferation.

One of the major uses of weapons of mass destruction is to destroy the enemies weapons of mass destruction. We need another way. I think space-based microwave and laser systems are the wave of the future. This is probably a moot point, being considered by a few short-sighted cold-war vets who will be entirely extinct from the government in 10 years at the most.

That being said: nations fight wars. If you don't want to win, move to France. Otherwise let the government prepare to defend you.

actually it is necessary to have bunker busters tipped with a warhead because osama hides in caves some of them so deep that bunker busters cant penetrate but a nuke can.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
actually it is necessary to have bunker busters tipped with a warhead because osama hides in caves some of them so deep that bunker busters cant penetrate but a nuke can.

And after that you're really going to clean that radioactive fallout?
I don't think so.

clean the radiation hell no let those mother________ suffer from the radiation i could care less we could send out drones and minature robots they dont suffer from radiation burns

I would be in full support of this if it wern't for the fact that Dubya would use them. I figure if we are going to use them build an effective SDI system to protect us from the counter-strike.

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by WestPoint23
actually it is necessary to have bunker busters tipped with a warhead because osama hides in caves some of them so deep that bunker busters cant penetrate but a nuke can.

And after that you're really going to clean that radioactive fallout?
I don't think so.

The fallout from an undergound blast would be very low after a couple of months at the most (most fission products have half lives measured in days or weeks)..

star wars that might be true

Originally posted by WestPoint23
clean the radiation hell no let those mother________ suffer from the radiation i could care less we could send out drones and minature robots they dont suffer from radiation burns

The radiation released from Chernoble circled the globe in a couple of weeks.

Even short lived isotopes like Iodine-131 can have a disastorous effect on the worlds dairy industry.

other isotopes like cesium-137 and Strontium-90 are longer lived and have been proven to bioaccumulate.

this is a nuclear tipped bunkerbuster not a nuclear power plant there is a difference.



[edit on 26-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by WestPoint23
clean the radiation hell no let those mother________ suffer from the radiation i could care less we could send out drones and minature robots they dont suffer from radiation burns

The radiation released from Chernoble circled the globe in a couple of weeks.

Even short lived isotopes like Iodine-131 can have a disastorous effect on the worlds dairy industry.

other isotopes like cesium-137 and Strontium-90 are longer lived and have been proven to bioaccumulate.

And just becuase I'm curious, what studies have shown ANY adverse effect due to Cherynobyl (more than a 100 miles away). And no, just saying "radiation increased by xxx%" is not proof of any ill effects.

Heck, what studies have even seemed to show ANY ill effects?

Originally posted by Starwars50
Heck, what studies have even seemed to show ANY ill effects?

Read about amount of leukemia incidents... and Sellafield in Britain.

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Starwars50
Heck, what studies have even seemed to show ANY ill effects?

Read about amount of leukemia incidents... and Sellafield in Britain.

Again - what studies have shown ANY credible links between those and Cherynobyl.

I'll be waiting if one happens to appear...

news.bbc.co.uk...

no star wars there were affects felt world wide also in Russia after the incident pregnant mothers had mutated children because of the radiation and it takes a long time for the environment to clean itself up here look at this link above hope it helps

Originally posted by WestPoint23
news.bbc.co.uk...

no star wars there were affects felt world wide also in Russia after the incident pregnant mothers had mutated children because of the radiation and it takes a long time for the environment to clean itself up here look at this link above hope it helps

This article only points to "increased radiation levels". This is not proof of any sort of ill effects. In fact, I highly doubt anywhere outside of maybe 100 miles from Chernobyl has an average exposure (for an average human) greater than the occupational exposure of an airline pilot.

I personally have worked with scientists who worked on the Manhattan project. Some had single day doses in the 5-10 rem range, and are still alive (and cancer free) in their 80s and 90s.

There has never been any proof of any ill effects of low-level radiation exposure (less than 15 rem or so in a short amount of time) - all of the current beliefs are based on the theory that any exposure to radaition causes harm in linear relationship to very high doses. This is similar to saying that because getting hit by a car can kill you instantly, tapping your bumper every day could have the same effect.

This is of course the safest perspective until data from low-level exposure can be collected and processed (this will take many years), but many scientists feel that it is incorrect.

For example, if this were the case - people in Canada or Scandanavia (with large uranium ore reserves and therefore high daily exposure from uranium daughter isotopes) would have shorter life expectancies than those in places with low average exposure - which is not the case. Also, people with high occupational exposures (pilots, people who work in granite buildings) would show more health problems than others - which has also never been shown.

In short - just saying "due to Chernobyl fish in xxxx lake have 10% higher levels of xxx isotope" does not even come close to showing damage (other than psychological or financial).

What a coinsidence that cancer cases rose more than usual right around when a certain power plant went ka-bam!